The physical world is only as strong as the string. — theRiddler

The physical world is what produces the physical string in that physical world.

The truth is, something so abstract can't be meaningfully defined by its physicality. — theRiddler

Says who? We're talking about the single most complex and sophisticated system in the known universe, which we know governs every other function of the body. What would lead us to conclude that the brain isn't producing it, with no evidence to negate the established body of evidence that suggests as much, but conclude something else is responsible for it without providing evidence to support the assertion, or even describe what we mean as the separate source itself? You have to see how irrational that is.

The body cogoverns with assistance from the outside world. The brain isn't just some powerhouse that wanted a cool body. The flesh keeps the blood warm; the brain tells the heart to pump because it receives blood from the heart, and without a skeleton your organs would rebel against you.

It isn't saying anything to say the brain produces consciousness. All the evidence points to us not having a comprehensive understanding of the insides of or what is outside the body. It's very shortsighted to draw conclusions about all the properties of consciousness at this juncture.

We don't know what energy or the physical are. People have been taking the most myopic approach and calling that reality for thousands of years, and nine times out of ten they're wrong.

And you disgruntle me by saying the brain produces consciousness. That tells us nothing about the brain or consciousness and there are a myriad of forces that could be at play here.

Everything is connected, and consciousness no lesser so. Perhaps it is produced by the brain. Perhaps the brain is a transducer for a field of consciousness. Perhaps matter is just how mind happens to seem.

It bothers me when people claim to have solved these mysteries with no concrete proof, as if there could even be concrete proof, and is a hurdle to open-minded, scientific exploration.

You're just claiming to know how everything works.

No, you misunderstand, I have loads of empirical evidence of that — Garrett Travers

Your usage of "Empirical" seems to go beyond the literal meaning, to include Theoretical inferences. So, we are, as usual, talking past each other ; using different vocabularies (Science vs Philosophy). Empirical evidence would be a list of observed facts (theory-neutral raw data). But an interpretation of those facts (pro-or-con-Mind) would be a conjectural postulation, since no "load" of reductive empirical data will prove the physical existence of something holistic & hypothetical. So, the electro-chemical activities of neurons would be empirical, but attribution of a thought, connected to that behavior, would be theoretical. (Until MRIs can read minds directly, rather than by human inference, that is) Therefore, as non-specialist non-scientists, we can only discuss various theories about Brain & Mind, not empirical facts.

You can give me a list of experts who conclude Mind = Brain, and I could give you a list of experts who conclude Brain does not equate to Mind. The difference is not necessarily in the data, but in the interpretation. And It's not simply Materialism versus Spiritualism (as you may presume), but more like Classical Physics versus Post-Classical. Yet the primary difference between your theory of Mind and mine, is Reductionism (empirical trees) versus Holism (conceptual forest).

As an example of a classical approach to Mental phenomena, Behaviorism expected to explain Consciousness without resort to any Theory of Mind. But, while it produced some useful facts, it never explained how Matter could become aware of its environment, or of itself. Since I'm not a specialist, I can only say that in my skeptical opinion, the "loads of evidence" you refer to does not add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans -- an explanation for the phase transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter. Instead, the reductionist Materialism & Behaviorism theories actually took the conclusion as a premise. But, the current wave of Holistic theories (e.g. I.I.T) are looking beyond the bare facts toward a rational inference, that actually explains the distinction between a thinking brain, and an isolated brain-in-a-vat. :nerd:

PS___If we took a vote of all Brain-Mind experts right now, I suspect that your side would win. But my experts are "on the side of the angels". :joke:
.

It is argued that a scientific theory, together with its concepts, is simply a postulated system of logical categories for conceptualizing a theory-neutral experimental datum. This entails that the mind-body problem is a methodological rather than an empirical or even a metaphysical issue regarding the logical adequacy of one or another theoretical framework for construing the relation between mental, bodily, and environmental categories.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF03394144

Science as we know it can’t explain consciousness – but a revolution is coming :
In fact, we should not be surprised that our standard scientific method struggles to deal with consciousness. As I explore in my new book, Galileo’s Error: Foundations for a New Science of Consciousness, modern science was explicitly designed to exclude consciousness. Phillip Goff, Gallileo's Error
https://theconversation.com/science-as-we-know-it-cant-explain-consciousness-but-a-revolution-is-coming-126143

Why is behaviorism wrong? :
In this version of history, there was something wrong with behaviorism in the 1970s and 1980s – it became too focused on specific problems and lost the big picture.
Note -- the Reductionist approach has failed, so Holistic approaches, such as Tononi/Koch's Integrated Information Theory are now the cutting-edge of Mind Science.

The body cogoverns with assistance from the outside world. The brain isn't just some powerhouse that wanted a cool body. The flesh keeps the blood warm; the brain tells the heart to pump because it receives blood from the heart, and without a skeleton your organs would rebel against you. — theRiddler

You seem to be under the impression that you are talking about different things. The body and all of its organs are a singular manifestation, the functions of which are all governed and controlled by the brain. You've got a reduction fallacy going, the system is more complex than individual parts being analyzed as separate. Livers don't just spring out of holes in the ground. You're talking 3.5 billion years of evolution, it doesn't play by rules of mere logical assembly. Its all one system of complex, interdependent, functional, networking, structures, whose central hub of control is the brain: a multistructural, multifunctional, network of computational systems of unrivaled sophistication, that corresponds to each individul functional structure to provide the necessary information to do provide functionality to the entire organism. The outside world is the domain in which it has evolved to exist within, and navigate through while maintaining homeostasis. This kind of analysis simply isn't gonna cut it.

It isn't saying anything to say the brain produces consciousness. All the evidence points to us not having a comprehensive understanding of the insides of or what is outside the body. It's very shortsighted to draw conclusions about all the properties of consciousness at this juncture. — theRiddler

No, it's shortsighted to deny what is clearly supported by science, because of one's perceived ignorance on the subject, which is also a fallacy you have going on. Saying the brain produces consciousness is simply relaying what the evidence supports as a theory, with no evidence to the contrary whatsoever; again, gaps in knowledge neither negates anything about my position, nor validates anything about yours. You still have to provide both and explanation that is plausible -which is unclear at this moment, you haven't explained what your asserting as an alternative - and evidence to support that explanation. Hasn't happened from anybody that has ever argued with me about this topic since I came to this website over a month ago. Period.

We don't know what energy or the physical are. — theRiddler

Apply this standard to everything you believe and what you'll find is that nothing will ever pass your contradictory standard, because it is contradictory and not a standard. Your standard of knowledge is itself ignorance. So, what I'll simply respond here with is basic: Yes we do, and here's an introduction: https://byjus.com/chemistry/properties-of-matter/#:~:text=Any%20characteristic%20that%20can%20be,are%20considered%20properties%20of%20matter.

People have been taking the most myopic approach and calling that reality for thousands of years, and nine times out of ten they're wrong. — theRiddler

Name one person; what did they say, and has it been empirically observed and experimented with? Otherwise I'm going to have to apply this statement specifically to the person who made it, who hasn't said what he regards anything to be other than "we don't know, shortsighted, not having comprehensive understanding, or myopic." In other words no argument for anything, other than your inclination towards nothingness.

And you disgruntle me by saying the brain produces consciousness. That tells us nothing about the brain or consciousness and there are a myriad of forces that could be at play here. — theRiddler

All of the functions of the body, including executive function, that we have found evidence for, are all governed by the brain. It's pretty elementary stuff in cog-sci, too. Here's a cool intro overview on it with pictures and explanations, and some sources at the bottom for you to research have you any conclusions based on what you haven't understood:https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2021.534184
In short, what I actually did was disgruntle your brain's perception of itself, lol. But, it will relax once the threat passes.

Perhaps it is produced by the brain. — theRiddler

Yeah, I mean, all of the evidence suggests as much. And seriously, go try to find research that actually suggests that the brain doesn't control a function of the body, it's not there. There are competing theories based on ignorance fallacies, and old mystic issues from Christianity, but no actual research suggests anything other than what I have told you.

It bothers me when people claim to have solved these mysteries with no concrete proof, as if there could even be concrete proof, and is a hurdle to open-minded, scientific exploration. — theRiddler

Who claimed to have solved anything? I claimed that the research suggests nothing else than what I have relayed, not that anything is "solved." And, for the record, the "solved" part of what you're eluding to, are actually centuries old, unscientific claims made about the mind derived from the 1000 year reign of Christian induced ignorance and SkyMan Talking-Donkey worship. It's never been anymore of a mystery than naturally emergent production, just as Epicurus postulated hundreds of year before Constantine ushered in the age of Christianity.

You're just claiming to know how everything works. — theRiddler

And you're just claiming to know literally nothing. So, I'm not entirely sure why were here speaking to one another.

Theoretical inferences. — Gnomon

No, theories are postulated, then evidence is gathered that either supports it, or not. That's what I mean by empirical.

(Science vs Philosophy) — Gnomon

These are not different vocabularies. To omit the current scientific data from your philosophical analysis, is to committ the disregarding known science fallacy: This fallacy is committed when a person makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards well known science, science that weighs against the claim. They should know better. This fallacy is a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence.
https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#DisregardingKnownScience

I don't know where people keep coming up with this fake standard, but don't continue doing it with me. You're gonna need to actually contend with my position if you wanna hang, bud. You're talking with the real thing when speaking to me, bud, you gotta step it up. You've been cordial so far with me, so I'll be as well, but this is the kind of assertion that isn't going to fly.

So, the electro-chemical activities of neurons would be empirical, but attribution of a thought, connected to that behavior, would be theoretical. — Gnomon

No, it wouldn't. It's mainstream empirical science that suggest nothing else: https://www.pnas.org/content/112/37/11732.full?sid=b9968895-810f-4713-8887-ae0445dfa79b
https://www.aau.edu/research-scholarship/featured-research-topics/tracking-thoughts-moving-through-brain
https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/3-2-our-brains-control-our-thoughts-feelings-and-behavior/

You're years behind the field here. The empirical data supports the theory that the brain controlls every function of the body, including thought and behavior.

Since I'm not a specialist, I can only say that in my skeptical opinion, the "loads of evidence" you refer to does not add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans -- an explanation for the phase transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter. — Gnomon

So, what you're saying is you believe things for no reason.You could have openned with that.

By this standard, empirical evidence provided to you that would explain the "transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter," would " add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans," because you're a "numb & dumb," "explanation" "specialist."

But, the current wave of Holistic theories (e.g. I.I.T) are looking beyond the bare facts toward a rational inference, that actually explains the distinction between a thinking brain, and an isolated brain-in-a-vat. — Gnomon

Lol, you poor child. Here, buddy, go see how without imperical data, IIT is woo. Now, IIT has some good concepts, but not when dissociated from funtional theories:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333802932_The_Unfolding_Argument_Why_IIT_and_Other_Causal_Structure_Theories_Cannot_Explain_Consciousness?_iepl%5BgeneralViewId%5D=XOXNj2v6I9Yz8KgyF10N1JC29S24WcYKbrTV&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=searchReact&_iepl%5BviewId%5D=jc0F0Vc6tYeftKvss7HVlfzMPnU5YYDU03HS&_iepl%5BsearchType%5D=publication&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BcountLessEqual20%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BinteractedWithPosition1%5D=1&_iepl%5Bdata%5D%5BwithoutEnrichment%5D=1&_iepl%5Bposition%5D=1&_iepl%5BrgKey%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A333802932&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle

In short, it is specifically the function of recurrent neural processes of computation that give rise to anything that can be postulated in IIT, which is not a scientific theory, but more a conceptual framework for certain types of systems. But, they've got some stuff right.

PS___If we took a vote of all Brain-Mind experts right now, I suspect that your side would win. But my experts are "on the side of the angels" — Gnomon

That's correct. The study above from 2019 explains exactly that, with experimental data, predictions, and comparisons between computation theories, and causal theories of consciousness. Now, get outta here and get to reading, you ole Explanation Specialist, we need you to be properly explaining stuff.

The brain manages, not governs.

We are whole bodies, out of our minds. We're not just a nervous system, as is self-evident

The abstraction of the body can't be found inside of the brain. In fact it's barely aware.

The brain manages, not governs. — theRiddler

No, the govenor brains the manager. It's in the study up there.

The abstraction of the body can't be found inside of the brain. In fact it's barely aware. — theRiddler

The abstraction.....can't be found.... in the brain..... Well.. Where the hell is it, then??

We are, out of our minds, as is self-evident.... is ... We're system... No brain... barely aware .... whole bodies nervous.... abstraction found inside.... — theRiddler

Just wondering how many forum members are prepared to say there are no thoughts. Thanks for playing! — ZzzoneiroCosm

It is at first, a simple question confirmed by the presence of thought in the asking of the question itself. The trouble rises when you want to reduce thought to something that is not thought. This reduction, however, presupposes thought.
If you want to say there is no thought, you are going to have to live with a contradiction. Thought cannot be reduced.

By this standard, empirical evidence provided to you that would explain the "transition from numb & dumb Matter to self-aware Conscious Matter," would " add-up to a holistic hill-of-beans," because you're a "numb & dumb," "explanation" "specialist." — Garrett Travers

GT, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a principled philosophical exchange of views on a controversial topic, without resorting to (much) name-calling and ad hominem aspersions. At least you mostly attribute my "numb & dumb" explanations to mere ignorance & stupidity instead of intentional malice.

Unfortunately, unlike empirical Science, theoretical Philosophy is not progressive but circular. We are still arguing about the same issues that Aristotle articulated 2500 years ago. And no impasse is more contentious than Physics versus Meta-Physics, AKA Science vs Religion. I am not a practicing scientist, and I don't practice any religion. But in this thread my arguing position is somewhere in between Materialistic Scientism and Spiritualistic Religionism. I suppose you could label it as Philosophism.

My purpose for exposing my heterodox worldview to opposing orthodox views is to help me weed-out my own ignorance & misunderstandings. That's how I learn to see both sides of many disputes. But my moderate stance places me in the middle of a circular firing squad. My religious family think I have gone over to Satan's side, while my scientific friends suspect that I may be a closet New Age nutcase. Se la vie. I can see where both are coming from, but I took the path less traveled by true-believers on either side. Thanks for playing the philosophy game of Virtual Dialogue. :smile:


"There are no 'good' or 'bad' people. Some are a little better or worse. but all are activated more by misunderstanding than malice."
___Tennessee Williams

I've looked at life from both sides now
From win and lose and still somehow
It's life's illusions I recall
I really don't know life at all
___Joni Mitchell

". . . . since the human mind is capable of dealing with both empirical reality and intangible imagination. In fact, most people do indeed manage to hold both idealistic worldviews (religious myths, romantic stories, hypothetical conjectures) and pragmatic views (technical knowledge, scientific models of reality), although in discrete mental compartments. So in order to understand the whole truth of our existence, we need to look at both sides of every polarized worldview. In the non-fiction world, we don’t always have to choose either Good or Evil, but we can look for a moderate position near the Golden Mean, the sweet spot I call BothAnd."
____BothAnd Glossary

The brain and the body are so codependent that the brain is a part of the body. This attempt to dwindle people down to a singular body part sounds like it was invented by a sociopath.

empirical Science, theoretical Philosophy is not progressive but circular. — Gnomon

This disconnection in your mind is a big issue. One has to inform the other, or it isn't philosophy.

Science vs Religion. — Gnomon

THere's no intellectual contention there. Just one group holding on to no evidence, and the other having all of the evidence that has been accrued so far.

Materialistic Scientism and Spiritualistic Religionism. — Gnomon

Only one has any evidence, the other is just feelings.

My purpose for exposing my heterodox worldview to opposing orthodox views is to help me weed-out my own ignorance & misunderstandings. — Gnomon

This is what it is all about. But, there is only empirical methods to reveal those to you.

But my moderate stance places me in the middle of a circular firing squad. — Gnomon

In which case, I will gladly apologize for being insulting. You have no idea how often people simply deny facts of reality on this website. I respect this position, I've been there. It's part of the philosophical journey.

My religious family think I have gone over to Satan's side, while my scientific friends suspect that I may be a closet New Age nutcase. — Gnomon

Yep, welcome to the family brother, glad to have you. If religious people are willing to claim you are evil for searching for answers, as mine did, it may be best for you to begin rethinking their fixed place in your life. Just something to keep in mind as a topic of exploration. As far as New Age nutcase, what views are they specifically criticizing?

Thanks for playing the philosophy game of Virtual Dialogue. :smile: — Gnomon

It's what I'm here for, for the time being. :smile:

The brain and the body are so codependent that the brain is a part of the body. — theRiddler

This is correct.

This attempt to dwindle people down to a singular body part sounds like it was invented by a sociopath. — theRiddler

No, the attempt to relegate the complexity of the brain so as to be defined by nothing, is exactly what was invented by murderous sociopaths. Epicurus posited the idea of an organ producing consciousness through natural processes, whose legacy has never been associated with psychopathic tendencies. Look that up.

It's sociopathic to try and force people to believe all that they are is an organ in the vat of the body. We are whole people, found out here, out of our minds, in the cosmos. Not inside some dying brain.

I'm not even against the role of the brain in, at least, regulating consciousness. I believe it isn't just some useless thing. But do I determine that our awareness is perfectly linear and within the scope of human understanding? No, I certainly do not.

It's sociopathic to try and force people to believe all that they are is an organ in the vat of the body. We are whole people, found out here, out of our minds, in the cosmos. Not inside some dying brain. — theRiddler

No, it's sociopathic to attempt to convince them that they aren't controlled by the single most sophisticated and complex system in the known universe which is capable of producing consciousness. Has nothing to do with brains is vats, that's not how our universe is. I would never argue such a thing. But, most assume that's what I mean. I'm complimenting the human brain with its proper majesty, not relegating to some theoretical domain of non-corporeal ether.

As far as New Age nutcase, what views are they specifically criticizing? — Garrett Travers

You can find the Black vs White critics replying to my BothAnd posts all over this forum. They try to push me to their side of the absolute Truth spectrum. Fortunately, most posters are somewhat humble & flexible in their philosophical opinions. Only a few are absolutely certain of their scientific or religious Truth.

Apparently, the Yin-Yang symbol is a badge of NewAgeism, even though Aristotle advised a similar middle-of-the-road approach, in order to avoid the Either/Or Fallacy. I try not to be peremptory (dogmatic) about Science vs Religion, or Real vs Ideal. There is good & bad on both sides. So, I get to sample the best of both worlds, without getting stuck in a pile of dogma. :joke:

Note -- There's an old saying : "I must be doing something right, if I get criticized from both extremes".

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.

* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to offset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference; for example, subjective or objective, religious or scientific, reductive or holistic, pragmatic or romantic, conservative or liberal, earthbound or cosmic. Ultimate or absolute reality (ideality) doesn't change, but your conception of reality does. Opposing views are not right or wrong, but more or less accurate for a particular purpose.
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system. For example, in a Quantum Computer, a Qubit has a value of all possible fractions between 1 & 0. Therefore, you could say that it is both 1 and 0.
BothAnd Glossary

absolute Truth spectrum — Gnomon

Any truth that could be found in the not absolute category, would at that moment constitute a place in the absolute state of truth. It's completely reductive.

Note -- There's an old saying : "I must be doing something right, if I get criticized from both extremes". — Gnomon

That's about right.

Both/And Principle : — Gnomon

Go check out General Systems Theory, and Informationa Integration Theory to compliment some of the understandings you placed underneath this banner. They're all similar, some more scientific, others more topical. The universe is fundamentally a system of systems with no exceptions, and the point from which things should be viewed.

When considering the human body, its activities, and what it expresses, nothing called a “thought” can be found there. There are no sentences or images in the body, no such object or set of objects measurable in the sensible world, and no expression not already covered by better terms.

It is a useful term, though, in matters of folk psychology. It’s not a feature of grammar but people will point to a number of clauses or sentences and call that a “thought” with little objection. Some biological activity may occur and someone could say “I had a thought”, and we understand what she means. But there is nothing called a “thought” on the plane of existence.

Any truth that could be found in the not absolute category, would at that moment constitute a place in the absolute state of truth. It's completely reductive. — Garrett Travers

The last part of this assertion belies the first part. The "absolute category" would be inherently all-encompassing & Holistic, hence not piecemeal & Reductive. Which reminds me that these politically polarized threads (e.g. FreeWill vs Determinism : Mind vs Brain) tend to begin as philosophical dialogs with sharing of information & opinions. But they quickly devolve into political sniping across the dividing line. The opposing poles can be labeled as either Reductive or Holistic. But the BothAnd philosophy crosses the no-man's-land to unite those disparate worldviews. Unfortunately, the politicization of the discussion forces each participant to retreat into an Either/Or stance. :angry:

Go check out General Systems Theory, and Informationa Integration Theory to compliment some of the understandings you placed underneath this banner. — Garrett Travers

To "complement" your mis-understanding, you could check-out the BothAnd Blog to discover how Systems Theory and Information Theory are integrated into the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity. You may be surprised that your interlocutor is not quite as ignorant as your political jibes make him out to be. Of course, your Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy might be offended by the fraternization of opposing worldviews, such as Religion and Science. The moderate BA position doesn't accept the dogma of either side, but it does try to understand how they became entrenched in their defensive postures. :cool:

PS__ Are you politically conservative to match your conservative Science=Truth ideology? :joke:


BothAnd Blog :
* Individuals may have strong beliefs & principles. But interpersonal endeavors require more flexibility. So, this blog is an argument for Relativism, Negotiation, Compromise, & Cooperation.
* The usual alternative to these wavering wimpy ways is the unyielding dominant stand-point of Absolutism, Conflict, and Competition. Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values.
* Nationalism is a modern pseudo-democratic off-shoot of Royalism, with its divine right to rule a nation of pawns. Democracy and Socialism are imperfect attempts to accommodate the needs & wishes of all citizens from top to bottom.
* The Blog assumes that we will always have people on both sides of every issue. Yet, we can still have our private beliefs, even as we make public concessions to necessity.
BothAnd Glossary

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.

HOLISM IS COMPLEMENTARY
REDUCTIONISM IS INCOMPLETE

The last part of this assertion belies the first part. The "absolute category" would be inherently all-encompassing & Holistic, hence not piecemeal & Reductive. — Gnomon

You didn't take time to highlight the NOT absolute category. Let's try this argument again, this time include the NOT part.

Which reminds me that these politically polarized threads (e.g. FreeWill vs Determinism : Mind vs Brain) tend to begin as philosophical dialogs with sharing of information & opinions. But they quickly devolve into political sniping across the dividing line. The opposing poles can be labeled as either Reductive or Holistic. But the BothAnd philosophy crosses the no-man's-land to unite those disparate worldviews. Unfortunately, the politicization of the discussion forces each participant to retreat into an Either/Or stance. — Gnomon

I have no place in this analysis. I don't give a shit about politics, except where it violates my freedom.

To "complement" your mis-understanding, you could check-out the BothAnd Blog to discover how Systems Theory and Information Theory are integrated into the BothAnd Principle of Complementarity. — Gnomon

Is said to "compliment" the ideas, because they are compatible. Not because you "need" to have your views increased. I was agreeing with those statements, dipshit.

You may be surprised that your interlocutor is not quite as ignorant as your political jibes make him out to be. Of course, your Conservative vs Liberal dichotomy might be offended by the fraternization of opposing worldviews, such as Religion and Science. — Gnomon

....Huh? Fuck all of those ideologies, they're all the same people who simply want to use power to violate my rights, and are both fucking clueless about history, philosophy, and science. (science not an ideology)

The moderate BA position doesn't accept the dogma of either side, but it does try to understand how they became entrenched in their defensive postures. — Gnomon

Religions have a way of being dogmatic, my friend. Best to avoid them altogether and pursue individual accrual of knowledge, happiness, and proficiency.

Individuals may have strong beliefs & principles. But interpersonal endeavors require more flexibility. So, this blog is an argument for Relativism, Negotiation, Compromise, & Cooperation.
* The usual alternative to these wavering wimpy ways is the unyielding dominant stand-point of Absolutism, Conflict, and Competition. Royal and Imperial political & religious systems tend to adopt an autocratic stance of “my way or the highway”. Whereas, In more democratic and egalitarian systems, the marketplace of ideas will determine truths and values.
* Nationalism is a modern pseudo-democratic off-shoot of Royalism, with its divine right to rule a nation of pawns. Democracy and Socialism are imperfect attempts to accommodate the needs & wishes of all citizens from top to bottom.
* The Blog assumes that we will always have people on both sides of every issue. Yet, we can still have our private beliefs, even as we make public concessions to necessity.
BothAnd Glossary — Gnomon

Yes, states are evil and irredeemable, I know.

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature. — Gnomon

Exactly. Just don't shoot me any conclusions that have zero evidence to support them. I can play with assertions and theories all day.

I have no place in this analysis. I don't give a shit about politics, except where it violates my freedom. — Garrett Travers

I referred to political polarization because you seem to be defending an ideological position, which some refer to as "Scientism". I'm reluctant to use such categorical labels, but your insistence on empirical evidence --- for Philosophical concepts that are not amenable to reductive dissection --- is a mis-application of a good policy. You portray my not-yet-orthodox cutting-edge "evidence" as in-admissible. But a Mind is not a lab rat.

In this thread, we are discussing a phenomenon (Thought) that is invisible & intangible -- only inferrable & theoretical -- yet you demand empirical evidence for its existence. Since, after 2500 years of speculating, there is no hard evidence forthcoming; from your ideological perspective this thread is an exercise in futility -- except as a political arena to display the superiority of the Scientism party. I apologize for using a shorthand label for your view. But, it omits the very essence of Philosophical Evidence : subjective experience & rational appraisal, in cases where objective testing is not applicable. Unfortunately, that includes most of the topics that politicians come to blows about. :cool:

PS__Even on Scientific forums, pioneering theories, such as Strings & Loops, are hotly debated, because the only evidence is mathematical (mental), not empirical (material). Some opponents say such theories are "not even wrong", but that's also true of all perennial philosophical questions. So why do we bother with philosophy anyway? Philosophy is not Natural Science, it's Cultural Science. :smile:


Phenomenon :
1. a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

Empirical vs Theoretical evidence :
Empirical: Based on data gathered by original experiments or observations. Theoretical: Analyzes and makes connections between empirical studies to define or advance a theoretical position.
https://coloradocollege.libguides.com/c.php?g=286871&p=1911416

Scientism :
“Scientism is a matter of putting too high a value on natural science in comparison with other branches of learning or culture.”
“Science, modeled on the natural sciences, is the only source of real knowledge.”
https://sciencereligiondialogue.org/resources/what-is-scientism/

Philosophical Evidence :
In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces.
https://iep.utm.edu/evidence/

Philosophical Evidence :
According to the phenomenal conception of evidence, only one's experiences can serve as evidence.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evidence/

Evidence-based Medicine :
My sister has been suffering from a mysterious debilitating ailment that mainstream doctors have not been able to correctly diagnose & treat for over 40 years. It forced her to give-up her work toward a Phd. The affliction has been given various labels, such as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. Another, non-mainstream label, is Toxic Mold Syndrome. Her doctors have tried to treat it as a typical allergy with no success. Some people with this syndrome go to live in tents in the desert, to avoid contact with ubiquitous mold. So, she has been desperately seeking relief via "alternative medicine", which at least took her subjective-suffering-with-little-objective-evidence seriously.
Only recently has her quest found significant relief from a common vitamin (niacinamide), that is reputed to stimulate the energy-producing mitochondria in human cells. Ironically, one of the alternative non-MDs claims that his treatment is "evidence based", even though it is not reviewed or approved by the FDA. I tend to be somewhat skeptical of much "alternative" medicine. But for me, the evidence that counts is that she is a completely different person from the shell-of-a-self that has been dragging around for all those years. That's subjective, not empirical evidence.
To mirror your apolitical expression above : I don't give a sh*t about medical politics, except where it marginalizes what works subjectively as non-empirical.

I referred to political polarization because you seem to be defending an ideological position, which some refer to as "Scientism". I'm reluctant to use such categorical labels, but your insistence on empirical evidence --- for Philosophical concepts that are not amenable to reductive dissection --- is a mis-application of a good policy. You portray my not-yet-orthodox cutting-edge "evidence" as in-admissible. But a Mind is not a lab rat. — Gnomon

I don't know what any of this means. Science, as per basic philosophical understanding, is never to be dismissed and should inform one's philosophical theories. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts. My insistence isn't on empirical evidence, it's on any evidence whatsoever other than talking. Another philosophical understanding that is basic. The mind is not a lab rat..... Hm, why would someone say that to the guy who's been explaining that the brain is the most complex system in the universe........? No answers for that....

yet you demand empirical evidence for its existence. — Gnomon

You claim it is invisible, but we understand definitively that thoughts are generated by the brain..... No, I'm saying you have no evidence of your claim, at all. And that the reason you don't, is because the evidence that exists suggests thoughts are a perception of computation. Perceptions themselves are not things, not unless you're talking about the actual functions you are yourself perceiving. And nobody on this site has been able to argue against that.

Since, after 2500 years of speculating, there is no hard evidence forthcoming; from your ideological perspective this thread is an exercise in futility -- except as a political arena to display the superiority of the Scientism party. — Gnomon

No, just participating in the answering of a thread question with facts, evidence, reason, and data. Scientism is just something you tossed in here and rode with, just like your "objectively real" thoughts that nobody can see.

I apologize for using a shorthand label for your view. But, it omits the very essence of Philosophical Evidence : subjective experience & rational appraisal, in cases where objective testing is not applicable. Unfortunately, that includes most of the topics that politicians come to blows about. — Gnomon

That's fine, no worries. People misunderstand eachother and insult eachother all the time. Luckily I didn't feel too insult because I could clearly detect that I hadn't gotten something across through these messages. But I reiterate, I am the single most anti-political human being I know of. I regard all politics as evil, and the people who participate to be completely fucking duped by bullshit.

PS__Even on Scientific forums, pioneering theories, such as Strings & Loops, are hotly debated, because the only evidence is mathematical (mental), not empirical (material). — Gnomon

Yes, which is fine if they want to debate it from the perspective of theorization. They do not, however, get to call it science. Any more than IIT get's to call their framework science. IIT has been empirically falsified now a number of times. That doesn't mean there's nothing of interest, or important, or elements that are compatible with the real stuff there. It's just, we don't get to call it real yet.

Some opponents say such theories are "not even wrong", but that's also true of all perennial philosophical questions. — Gnomon

Right, in logic, one can make an argument that is consistently valid, and yet never sound. The same thing goes for theoretical frameworks. I can fit anything into a theoretical framework of anykind. And if it is shown to be wrong, all I have to do is incorporate that particular thing that I was wrong about into the framework and voila! all better. It was Karl Popper who brought us falsifiability in science. If it cannot be falsified, it is not science.

In philosophy, evidence has been taken to consist of such things as experiences, propositions, observation-reports, mental states, states of affairs, and even physiological events, such as the stimulation of one's sensory surfaces. — Gnomon

Notice how all of these have an element if individual verification? This presentation is not an argument for providing no evidence whatsoever.

That's subjective, not empirical evidence.
To mirror your apolitical expression above : I don't give a sh*t about medical politics, except where it marginalizes what works subjectively as non-empirical. — Gnomon

No, dude. That's empirical. It's just not established science. That's most certainly empirical evidence of something changing due to medication, how do you not understand that? That is TWO people verifying something they are perceiving and testing with multiple treatments. It may not be good evidence for any argument, honestly his argument was pretty good in the sense that all he knows is the she isn't a damn zombie anymore. That is certainly imperical evidence for such, by definition. What I am asking for..... is any evidence at all. Of any kind...

Thoughts, they are such a fickle thing. Now most people will not deny the "validity" of the process and product of thought, however they will surely debate the nature of this thought. In what way does a thought exist, what kind of thought exists? What does it mean for the thought to exist? I say anything distinguishable in the human experience from another thing, is something which exists and is real. So yes, there are thoughts, and they are the one of the closest (it is close to us to access) manifestations of the incorporeal or the immaterial.

I don't know what any of this means. Science, as per basic philosophical understanding, is never to be dismissed and should inform one's philosophical theories. Period, no ifs, ands, or buts. — Garrett Travers

That is a pretty good summary of the authoritarian worldview called "Scientism". Technically, it's not a religion, but a dogmatic philosophical position, based on the absolute authority of some intangible entity called "Science". However, it may be described as "puritanical", in that it rejects such unreal impurities as "theories" and "opinions". Scientism may be considered political, in that it is identified mostly with Left Wing political views. Until now, I had never concerned myself with Scientism, partly because those who espouse the gospel of materialistic Science, don't think of themselves as political or religious, just as Orthodox believers in scientifically revealed Truth.

Scientism preaches a narrow definition of Science, and rejects most of the "soft sciences", especially, the Humanities, such as Philosophy. Coincidentally, I read a Scientific American article this morning on the topic of Anthropology & Paleontology, comparing "Neanderthal Thinking" with modern human beliefs and behaviors. From examining ancient bones the "scientists" concluded that those cave men had primitive forms of symbolic art and religious rituals. But, if you demand to see their falsifiable evidence, you would be disappointed to learn that it consists mainly of expert interpretations (inferences ; opinions) from vague data such as scratches on bones, and holes in eagle claws that resemble a necklace. You could say that they had hard (petrified) evidence for the soft thoughts of long dead people.

In philosophical dialogs, arguments from Final Authority are a win-lose strategy. Hence, there is no incentive for someone with different views to play their no-win game. Except perhaps, for those who enjoy sharpening their flexible philosophical skills on the unyielding rock of flawless Diamond-Hard Science. :cool:

The Curse of Scientism :
Not only is current scientific knowledge treated as gospel, but non-scientific knowledge is considered oxymoronic. At best, this means that we can never verify any knowledge that could not be verified through scientific methods.
https://www.calais.news/lefts-strange-morality-and-problem-scientism

Dogmatic Philosophy :
To be dogmatic is to follow a set of rules no matter what. The rules might be religious, philosophical, or made-up, but dogmatic people would never waver in their beliefs so don't even think of trying to change their minds.
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/dogmatic

Science as Ideology : Scientism. Finally, it is worth noting a sense in which science itself can form a basis of an ideology. When science is credited as the one and only way we have to describe reality, or to state truth, such restrictive epistemology might graduate into scientism.
https://iep.utm.edu/sci-ideo/

Hard science and soft science are colloquial terms used to compare scientific fields on the basis of perceived methodological rigor, exactitude, and objectivity. Roughly speaking, the natural sciences are considered "hard", whereas the social sciences are usually described as "soft".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science

Why did Karl Popper reject positivism? :
Popper disagreed with the positivist view that science can be reduced to a formal, logical system or method. A scientific theory is an invention, an act of creation, based more upon a scientist's intuition than upon pre-existing empirical data. “The history of science is everywhere speculative,”
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-paradox-of-karl-popper/

That is a pretty good summary of the authoritarian worldview called "Scientism". Technically, it's not a religion, but a dogmatic philosophical position, based on the absolute authority of some intangible entity called "Science". However, it may be described as "puritanical", in that it rejects such unreal impurities as "theories" and "opinions". Scientism may be considered political, in that it is identified mostly with Left Wing political views. Until now, I had never concerned myself with Scientism, partly because those who espouse the gospel of materialistic Science, don't think of themselves as political or religious, just as Orthodox believers in scientifically revealed Truth. — Gnomon

No it's just not making a "disregard for known science fallacy" one learns in basic logic: This fallacy is committed when a person makes a claim that knowingly or unknowingly disregards well known science, science that weighs against the claim. They should know better. This fallacy is a form of the Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence.

That's it. https://iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#DisregardingKnownScience

No it's just not making a "disregard for known science fallacy" — Garrett Travers

If you are going to insist on referring to "known science", you should at least cite book, chapter & verse. Where is it written that "there are no Thoughts or Minds, only Neural Nets & Brains"? Is that from the Authorized Version, or the Revised Standard Version? The non-specific Appeal to Authority is also a fallacy.

Back to the topic of this thread : Thought. Steven Pinker, a prominent expert in the "soft science" of Psychology, wrote a popular book (not authorized by any ruling power) entitled, The Stuff of Thought. In the chapter on metaphor, he quotes Lakoff & Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh, the Embodied Mind : "the mind is inherently embodied". To which statement-of-fact Pinker suggests an alternate "we offer the metaphor that the mind is inherently embodied " He goes on to note that, "in the very act of advancing their thesis, they presuppose transcendent notions of truth, objectivity, and logical necessity, that they ostensibly seek to undermine". Note : Pinker is as scientific & empiricist as possible for someone who writes about Mind Stuff.

The abstract notion of Mind, is also a metaphor, imagined as a container for similarly abstract thoughts. But abstractions are like skeletons : de-fleshed. :smile:


Philosophy in the Flesh review :
It's funny that, given the authors' explication of metaphors in all the world's philosophies, they should blatantly ignore the metaphorical assumptions which they make themselves. Specifically, they denounce all the metaphysicians for assuming that "there is a category of all things that exist"
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/31856.Philosophy_in_the_Flesh

Opinion :
"Western philosophy, then,is not an extended debate about knowledge, ethics, and reality, but a succession of conceptual metaphors." ___Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought

METAPHORS & ANALOGIES ARE "TRANSCENDENT NOTIONS"